"...but everything I've said still applies, so your objections seem rooted in judgement of the character in your example rather than an objection to my analysis, yet you still seem to present it as an objection to my analysis." I suppose it can seem that way, but I think I was just justifying for myself why subjectivity is annoying. That "best" is implied in the subjective context and a perversion of the subjective only exists outside the subjective. I think the definition of best must be restricted to the subjective only under certain contexts; and this context weighted against the objective best. Ack.
HA Wes, I just realized what was bothering the fuck outta me about your whole train of thought-- a compare. You see, the individual does not make a best decision each time, or most of the time for that matter. She simply makes the only decision that she can make. A best judgement or action is only applicable on a scale of ...good, better, best. In order words, unless the individual is able to compare all possible actions and pick the optimal, there is no "best". And as the individual does no compare, he does not do what is best for him. He simple does what he must do...
Re: HA But what he must do is exactly what is best at any given time, or he would do something different. If you say "oh but this would have been better" then why didn't you do it? If you say "I couldn't" then you didn't have that choice to begin with, so it can't be "best" since it's impossible. If you say "fuck you wes, you sorry bastard" I say "yeah I know it's annoying but I can't help it". *shrug* You cannot help but do exactly what you must do. By virtue of you deciding to do it, it becomes what YOU must have decided to be best, or you'd be doing something else. Mind you if it isn't best, that's irrelevant. It's that it's what you must have decided to be best, or you wouldn't be doing it. I'd say if it isn't best that can only be becaue you re-judged and determined non-optimal results. This brings the original decision-making process into question as it casts doubt on its applicability to future scenarios.
Incorrect ***nerdieboy**(gendanken impression). You simply do what you do without realizing the choices. If you have a habit to scream "fuck you" to ladies you want to fuck, you will necessarily scream, "fuck you". "Fuck you"is however not the optimal or best choice. A function as you described implies a lack of choice-- you simply do what you must do, based of course on previous decisions. You do not have the choice to decide on a best choice. Because he did not analyze all choices. But you don;t say I couldn't; you simply do what you can. And I say "exactly, nerd. You didn't know any better" **punch** No, it becomes what you simply did because you had no choice because you did not know other choices, or simply couldn't take the other choices.
Eventually... you'll get it. /You simply do what you do without realizing the choices. Exactly. No impact on the validity of my point. /If you have a habit to scream "fuck you" to ladies you want to fuck, you will necessarily scream, "fuck you". Sure, because somehow you've justified to your control centers that this behavior is best. /"Fuck you"is however not the optimal or best choice. Have you completely disregarded the subjectivity thing I was explaining to you before? It IS, as far as the context of the POV is concerned. Who else is qualified to judge "best"? Certainly society is apt to do so, but that really comes down to a subjective interpretation of.. well. That's another issue and a long story, I'd guess you could see it. /A function as you described implies a lack of choice-- you simply do what you must do, based of course on previous decisions. I don't see this implication at all from what either of us has discussed. There is still room for choice. /You do not have the choice to decide on a best choice. LOL. By whose measure? You are still doing what you were doing before. Don' you think you're judging the subject like you were before? /Because he did not analyze all choices. How is that relevant? He analyzed the choices he saw. He could have seen more, he chose not to (by his lack of research or whatever). He chose the best possible thing for him as far as he knew. /But you don;t say I couldn't; you simply do what you can. LOL. I know what you mean but I think you're missing something. You have a choice. If you don't choose to see it, that's still your choice. It doesn't mean you could have done better if you would have chosen something else, but if you didn't know it was possible, it's out of your bounds and thus impossible unless you do something random and it happens to be that thing that would have been best. It comes down to taking resposibility for your choices. Ultimately, you decide on action. Whatever action that is, could have been something different if you change your mind. Thus, the proper assumption is that the combination of all your controllable circumstance is a culmination of your choices. Bah, doing what you can is no different from doing your best. It's just that your best currently sucks. /And I say "exactly, nerd. You didn't know any better" LOL. I know better like your daddy fool. /**punch** **flick** /No, it becomes what you simply did because you had no choice PATHETIC. /because you did not know other choices, or simply couldn't take the other choices. PATHETIC. So you completely shirk responsibility for you choices? HA! what a punk.
Incorrect. If there are no choices, there is no compare, and thus no "best". No it is simple what you do. A habit. You can do other. No I did not disregard the point of view of the individual. Wes, the habit is not measure or compared to any other. The individual has no choice. Without a choice, there is no compare, and thus no "better", or "best" What????? Here is your original argument: By the mandate of your existence, at any given time you do what is best for you in the way that you've learned and currently think is the way that works best for you to do it. This is your function. Hence the world you see before you, exactly how only YOU can see it. You cannot deny or escape it. It's happening to you right now. Before I was merely talking to myself. Now, you are running in circles and not seeing the point. The whole issue is that the path the individual takes is a path the individual MUST take. There is no other option--so says you. This means a lack of choice. That path was simply taken because the individual could take only that path. If I know that the best way to get to the 50th floor of a hotel is by an elavator and because of certain conditions, am unable, and as a result take the stairs, I simply made the only choice I could. I did not make the best choice. Sure, you can relegate best to context upon context upon context. But even at that point, "best" must still be relative or simply is for there is not other choice.
At the moment I could be out exercising, which would make me healthier and more attractive to the opposite sex. Instead I'm sitting around posting to sciforums, even though it's of no discernable value to me beyond the momentary entertainment that it provides. It seems to me that I have chosen to do something other than what is best for me.
/Incorrect. If there are no choices, there is no compare, and thus no "best". LOL. There ARE choices fool. This was about the fact that you said you didn't weight ALL the choices. In effect you have infinite choice, even if you are FOOL enough to think you have none. /No it is simple what you do. A habit. You can do other. Your habit is your choice. /No I did not disregard the point of view of the individual. Wes, the habit is not measure or compared to any other. The individual has no choice. Without a choice, there is no compare, and thus no "better", or "best" That is simply nonsense. The invidividual has absolute choice. I could choose to do whatever the shit I want right now. I choose to type. It is was I deem best for me at the moment. "By the mandate of your existence, at any given time you do what is best for you in the way that you've learned and currently think is the way that works best for you to do it. This is your function." You have no choice but to do what is best, correct. What you deem to be best is all about your choice. You having a tough time there? /Before I was merely talking to myself. Now, you are running in circles and not seeing the point. Presumptuous cock. When are you going to understand that I'm five or ten steps beyond you? It's not your fault, I've simply had more time to prepare (well that and I'm talented and stuff). /The whole issue is that the path the individual takes is a path the individual MUST take. There is no other option--so says you. This means a lack of choice. Do you see now or do I have to repeat myself more? /That path was simply taken because the individual could take only that path. If I know that the best way to get to the 50th floor of a hotel is by an elavator and because of certain conditions, am unable, and as a result take the stairs, I simply made the only choice I could. But there was no other option, so obviously your choice was best given the contraints of reality. /I did not make the best choice. Yes you did. /Sure, you can relegate best to context upon context upon context. Yup. /But even at that point, "best" must still be relative or simply is for there is not other choice. Tell me how can you make a choice that you can't make? If your "best" option is impossible, it's not a fucking option, so considering it best is your fucking delusion/denial. Dig? /I am not talking unknowns, wessieboy. If there is a best you didn't take, it was obviously not the best fucking think or you would have taken it. Why is that so complicated? You have a hard time with simplicity? If there were a better best you would have taken it. Mind you, your decision is inherently limited to your thoughts/knowledge/experience/understanding. You do the best for you given your constraints. /The whole point of this crap was that you decided on that action because of uncontrollable and uncontrallable circumstances. You had no other choice but to take the path you took. You could change your you into a person who, in a similar future circumstance would make a different choice because you changed your personal scope, thus changing your interpretation of what "best" should be. /Your "best" currently sucks? Yes, obviously if faced with the choice of "one gazillion dollars" or "imminent loss of your pinky finger" and you choose losing the pinky finger, by my standards your best fucking sucks. I'd say that in all likelyhood, you would have to be a fucking idiot to make the pinky choice. There is the possibility that if later you were faced with a similar decision, your "best" would improve to align more specifically with your desired outcome of "pleasure" or "happiness" or "satisfaction" or whatever. Your personal best is a function of your priority. Change of priority would likely change one's choice of what "best" is. /If you recognize a best and are limited, there is a best. This recognition of a best or better is subjective. This is the subjective best. What other kind of "best or better" is there? Ultimately all interprations are subjective. You can certainly come up with some criteria, but if the POV you are "judging" rejects your critieria, your definitions are in direct conflict. If you impose your ideal upon that individual, you take the position of authority. While you may impose your authority upon the POV, you have tainted your experiment don't you think? /Your "best" is egalitarian bullshit. That is just a sad, sorry, small minded statement. Because I assume the POV of the individual regarding my analysis, you call it "egalitarian"? Man that is pathetic. If your mind were sharper, you'd see how what I'm describing here is really a fundamental tool for understanding the psychology of an individual. /You simply did what you could do, you did not do the best. BY WHOSE MEASURE??????????????? /LMAO. No, not really. Yes, really. Your lack of comprehension doesn't impact mine. /Uppercut; piledriver. *scoff* /"bleed bitch, bleeeeeeddddd" MUA HA HA HA *double scoff* /BAH. Where the fuck is the choice. It is as I explained above. /:bugeye: You have this worldview where you take responsibilities for your "choices", and yet this argument you put forth implies a lack of choices. No, it is your perspective that puts that onto my argument. I've explained it quite clearly, though I realize semantics is a huge barrier to any attempt at communication, especially regarding esoteric stuff. /Argue a statement and stop with this one word bs. I saw your statements were pathetic, showing total lack of insight - unworthy of more than the response. /Your take of the world is irrelevant to the argument you put forth, old man. You don't think so? You might want to reconsider, as my argument is inherently based in "my take of the world". /See what I mean? Nah, old man, I take responsibility for all my ACTIONS, Your actions are a result of your choices, little one. /and realize that future actions are predicated on my present actions. Which works the same if you substitute the word choice for action. /Therefore, I try to learn as much about a certain situation as possible... Good for you. As such, your choices will likely align well with your intended outcome.
/At the moment I could be out exercising, which would make me healthier and more attractive to the opposite sex. Sure you could. /Instead I'm sitting around posting to sciforums, even though it's of no discernable value to me beyond the momentary entertainment that it provides. Then your choice as to what is best for you doesn't align well with your intended outcome. You should spend some time on that. /It seems to me that I have chosen to do something other than what is best for me. I would disagree, obviously, as you choice of action is yours to make, so you're obviously doing what seems best for you to you at the time. For instance, to go out and excercise would require a significantly greater physical exertion than sitting and posting on sciforums. Obviously then, you choose that exertion is more effort than you are willing to put forth as as such exclude it from your options, or ignore it, or whatever you have to do to avoid exerting that effort. I'm not saying that for sure in you that is your thought process, I'm giving an exaple of how you are really making the choice you deem best in that you are your lack of willingness to sweat, get stinky, go outside, expend the exertion, or whatever limits your choices to sitting in front of your computer and posting instead of what a different part of your psychology deems best.
I"ll take a break from studying to reply to your tripe: I will argue this two ways, since I do not want to get into another discusssion about choice 1. You have a choice: Nitwit. You conveniently disregard that I asserted that the individual could not weigh all the choices because they couldn't. Fine. Fine The issue is that the choice you pick is not based on what is best. It is based on what you choose to satisfy certain conditions at the time. When will you get it through your pathetic head that I could give a shot about yor so called "experience"? You can maul something over for centuries and still reach the wrong conclusion. Do not brag, I do not care. See what? From this statement: "The whole issue is that the path the individual takes is a path the individual MUST take. There is no other option--so says you. This means a lack of choice." You are now saying that the individual has a fucking choice. The quoted assertion from me which you responded to, contradicts your take. This is so moronic I am beyond myself. This so called choice you take is the only one you can take. It does not go beyond the choice itself. It does not imply it is the best choice--for there were no other choices for you to compare to. If there is no degree, there is no measure. The choice could be the worst possible choice; but you chose it to satisfy maybe an addiction--say smoking. Choosing to satisfy the addiction is not the CONTEXT. No. The choice was simply made because I had no other fucking choice. Arrggggh No. It simply means that the best choice is impossible and so you chose the neXt in the series. It is not the best for the best, even if impossible under the conditions, is still recognizable. Nonsense. You did not take it because you couldn't. If my aim was to go to Harvard and I thought this the best choice and I somehow got addicted to crack and as a result, did not get into Harvard, I did not make the best choice. Why? The fucking context is not the addiction, but rather my admission to harvard. You can break context into contexts, anf further up until you reach your half-assed assertion, but then you have to revert. There is a hierachy of contexts. It is not fucking complicated. I have a hard time with thickheaded stubborn fools like, you who will argue to the end of the planet to support any moronic assertion they make simply because they made. Other times of course the assertion will quickly generate into subjectivity or a careful chnage of the original argument. You will do neither in this case; and you will withdraw your assertion. And what freaking relevance? You talked about subjective best. This 'standard' crap is nonsense. Fine. Whatever. What fucking relevance? The issue at hand is that you will always make the best choice under any circumstance. If your context chnaged and you made under this circumstance a choice that is best to you under the context, good for you. What the hell are you talking about? I am not imposing my subjectivity in deciding what is best or better. I am saying that for that individual to have made the best choice for them, there must necessarily have been other choices for them to consider. Otherwise they simply make the only choice they could make. Unless the individual can compare choices and pick a best, there is no "best"! What the fuck are you talking about? You present your own subjective take and put this on the individual-- this is not teh fundamnetal tool for understanding the subjective. Here is the original quote: "Bah, doing what you can is no different from doing your best. It's just that your best currently sucks." Your "best" does not suck for it is the best. BY YOUR BEST. Now that is fucking pathetic. I have heard this argumnet before from a slightly diefferent take and I have anyalzed it. I think it moronic. And No, not really. **raised eyebrow** Thought you were in ajoking mood from the post I responded to, obviously not. So right now, I am contemptuous of you. In this part, I assumed choice so we will move on. If there is anything esoteric, it is your misunderstanding of the whole situation I assert therefore that you are a moron. Ignore your take. Look above your fucking take. You are applying this argumnet to the entire species. Your take is comparison is fucking irrelevant. It takes but one exception to make it moot. My actions are a consequence of the accumulation of all experiences. No it does not. No, as such my actions will depend on previous actions. 2. Assuming a lack of choice. What the fuck are you talking about? You are again briging a POV OUTSIDE the subjective into the argument. If the perceiver is a "fool" enough to not realize what other choices he had, he had no other choices. LOL. Even if you believed in "choices", you could only say that a habit developed from a choice. The habit is not a choice--it is subconcious. [quoteThat is simply nonsense. The invidividual has absolute choice. I could choose to do whatever the shit I want right now. I choose to type. It is was I deem best for me at the moment.[/quote] You are typing now because you started a thread and it has gotten a response and you feel a need to respond and under the circumstances, you have to fucking type. Circular nonsense. If you have no choice but to do what is "best". There never was a choice, you will simply do what is "best". How the fuck is that so hard? Look at part 1 for a response. No. I see that this statement: "The whole issue is that the path the individual takes is a path the individual MUST take. There is no other option--so says you. This means a lack of choice.", which you implied was true said there are no fucking choices. Whaaaaaat? If you had no other option you had no choice! No you did not. You simply picked what you had to pick. If I must pick something and I have only one thing to pick, I pick it. I had no choice. [quoteTell me how can you make a choice that you can't make? If your "best" option is impossible, it's not a fucking option, so considering it best is your fucking delusion/denial. Dig?[/quote] What??? 1. You had no choice if you can't make it. 2. There is no fucking delusion because you do not consider it "best". Do not fucking bring delusion into this. Look at part 1.
Such frustration. You need :m: /I"ll take a break from studying to reply to your tripe: Tripe? Please. /I will argue this two ways, since I do not want to get into another discusssion about choice How flexible of you. /Nitwit. Hardly. /You conveniently disregard that I asserted that the individual could not weigh all the choices because they couldn't. No, it is not from convenience, it is due to irrelevance. An individual weighs all the choices they become aware of. That could be a huge number or zero, wholly dependent on the scope of the individual. The number of choices chosen from is the solution set for that individual. Certainly a broader set exists outside the consideration of that POV, but it is completely irrelevant. /The issue is that the choice you pick is not based on what is best. It is based on what you choose to satisfy certain conditions at the time. LOL. You just changed semantics to disagree with me, while basically saying exactly my entire point. Can you see that? I'm using best given those conditions, given circumstance, given the limited solution set. It is the same as saying "to satisfy certain conditions at the time". Silly man. You might think of it differently at the time but really you're doing nothing but identifying criteria and acting based on that, as you opt to make the decision that best satisfies those criteria, even if you're a shitty decision maker. /When will you get it through your pathetic head that I could give a shot about yor so called "experience"? You can maul something over for centuries and still reach the wrong conclusion. Do not brag, I do not care. You care you liar. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have a gift byatch, respect it! /See what? From this statement: "The whole issue is that the path the individual takes is a path the individual MUST take. There is no other option--so says you. This means a lack of choice." You MUST take the path that you deem best. In that you have no choice. You have choice about what you deem best at a given time. See the differentiation? Didn't I say that last time? So you had a choice to get there, but to look at it is retrospect. Your choice has dissolved. Maybe it's the mixing of tenses that has you off. You did what you deemed best and at the time you could have chosen whatever, but in retrospect - you have no choice because your choice is already made. /You are now saying that the individual has a fucking choice. The quoted assertion from me which you responded to, contradicts your take. You've just missed slight context shifts. I tried to explain that above and in the last post. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, maybe you're too thick to get it. Which is it? /This is so moronic I am beyond myself. You should rethink given my clarification and see if you find it so moronic. /It does not imply it is the best choice--for there were no other choices for you to compare to. There is always a choice. Your inability to see them may be a limiting factor in your ability to align the results of your choices with your intent. /If there is no degree, there is no measure. There is always a choice, so there is always a degree. You always have at least two options eh? This or that? Die or live? You choose what choice you deem best. You may not even consciously think about. /The choice could be the worst possible choice; but you chose it to satisfy maybe an addiction--say smoking. Say I'm a heroin addict. I like heroin a lot. I'm getting sick though because I haven't had a fix in a long time. What are my options? Get sick or get high? Whatever I choose, it's the best choice for me given what I see as my options. I certainly don't want to get sick, so I get high. Best choice made, life moves on. I'll give you a clue: Think economics and opportunity costs. Now apply that to every single little aspect of your mind. You might follow, but I doubt it. You are seemingly hell bent on proving that I'm wrong. What's funny is that you seem to think that I CAN be wrong about this. Maybe you'll find a contradiction. Regardless though you'll note this is opinion. I think this is how things can be logically viewed to determine the structure of someone's mind. It works well for me. You have to realize this about their them and you'll see things start to fall in line. Regardless, back to the fray. /Choosing to satisfy the addiction is not the CONTEXT. Why isn't it? Obviously if you've chosen to satisfy the addiction it's to avoid costs of choosing not to. You may think to yourself "well I care about living a long full life and being healthy" and I'll say "well you might, but obviously that doesn't stop you from choosing to avoid quitting, don't you find that contradictory to your assertion that you case about a love full life and being healthy?" Dig how this works yet? You're going to call it tripe again aren't you. *sigh* I'll get you schooled up, don't sweat it. Hehe. Okay probably not. It'll probably be 20 years from now when you'll finally realize "oh wait that dude was RIGHT! DAMN!". It's okay. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! heheahehae. Punk! /No. The choice was simply made because I had no other fucking choice. There is always choice. When I said "because there is no other choice" that is really a misnomer. I mean "no other acceptable choice". My bad. /Arrggggh. I apologized for this before it started. /It simply means that the best choice is impossible and so you chose the neXt in the series. Think about this. If I choose to fly to venus because they have a ton of sweet pussy there, but I have no vehicle to make the journey (let alone survive the planet). Was that a choice I could make or just a fantasy? Thus it isn't a choice, so you're full of shit. It falls to the top of the list as the top wasn't really the top, it was just your poor understanding of you options, or it wouldn't have been included in the first place. /It is not the best for the best, even if impossible under the conditions, is still recognizable. As fantasy, yes, as best? Only as your fantasy. /Nonsense. You did not take it because you couldn't. If you couldn't take it, it wasn't an option. If you chose not to take it, it wasn't the best option (per your understanding). /my aim was to go to Harvard and I thought this the best choice and I somehow got addicted to crack and as a result, did not get into Harvard, I did not make the best choice. /But you did. Your ability to make choices that allow you to achieve your goals, sucks. Why? The fucking context is not the addiction, but rather my admission to harvard. /But you changed your context when you chose to get addicted to crack. You can break context into contexts, anf further up until you reach your half-assed assertion, but then you have to revert. Bullshit. Apparently you must have fucked up your own contexts pretty bad in order to choose crack over harvard. Thus, you are living in a fantasy because harvard is no longer an option for you, you crackhead. /There is a hierachy of contexts. All of your contexts are integrated into your choices. You can pretend that your pretty little heirarchy exists, but if you're a crackhead, you've made your fucking bed and you new fucking context is crack. /It is not fucking complicated. I agree, but you seem intent on making it so. /I have a hard time with thickheaded stubborn fools like, you who will argue to the end of the planet to support any moronic assertion they make simply because they made. Tough huh? You are a fucking IDIOT if you think I'm sticking to this just because I made it. I've invested a lot of thought in it over a long period of time and just sat it out for you to look at. Your attempts to tear it down are welcome, but don't get pissed because I try to show you why it's standing in the first place, ass. /Other times of course the assertion will quickly generate into subjectivity or a careful chnage of the original argument. You will do neither in this case; and you will withdraw your assertion. So that crack story, that was real huh? Who the fuck do you think you're fucking with SON? I'm not trying to fuck with your head and I stand by my fucking assertion. You might attempt to actually demonstrate the problem if you expect something to be withdrawn. /And what freaking relevance? LOL. You're serious? The relevance was to attempt to clarify where the choice is. You have to choose something and you'll choose what you think is best. What you think is best however, is maleable over time. Eh, I've already gone into it. I don't feel like repeating it at the moment. /You talked about subjective best. This 'standard' crap is nonsense. I was always talking about subjective best, yes. Stating my take on someone else's decision is not nonsense. What the hell is wrong with you? /Fine. Whatever. What are you a fucking teenager? bah I'm done fucking with it for now. you're making a big deal from semantic bullshit. You oughtta curb that contempt though, that's fucked up. How can you take a remark like "double scoff" seriously? Jackass.
Wes, /No, it is not from convenience, it is due to irrelevance. An individual weighs all the choices they become aware of. That could be a huge number or zero, wholly dependent on the scope of the individual. The number of choices chosen from is the solution set for that individual. Certainly a broader set exists outside the consideration of that POV, but it is completely irrelevant. Give me a situation that allows 'choices' and I will show you a situation where you had to follow the path you did follow. I believe this "set" of solutions you present is merely one solution with the rest being dummies. Only one from the solution set is a solution; only one will be taken. /LOL. You just changed semantics to disagree with me, while basically saying exactly my entire point. Can you see that? I'm using best given those conditions, given circumstance, given the limited solution set. It is the same as saying "to satisfy certain conditions at the time". Silly man. You might think of it differently at the time but really you're doing nothing but identifying criteria and acting based on that, as you opt to make the decision that best satisfies those criteria, even if you're a shitty decision maker. I can see why you may think it mere semanctics are you have restricted context to fit this argument. I however, believe the diffference to be fully important. You see, the "best" under a given context is a mere subset of a larger context and the 'best' within the restricted context must not be labelled 'best' because it implicitly disregards context. Even then, if it were merely a context driven argumnet as provided, I would leave it alone. But it is not. As I have already presented, I do not consider a 'set' of one solution plus dummy solutions as having more than more solution. The solution is not a variable once the solution is known, and therefore, the 'set' consists of one solution. The only possible solution cannot be classed the 'best' because it is the only solution. Unless other solutions exist to compare, it is not a best. It is merely the only the solution. /You MUST take the path that you deem best. In that you have no choice. You have choice about what you deem best at a given time. See the differentiation? Didn't I say that last time? This is circularity. The statement can be logically constricted to: You take the best path. And this is what I am disagreeing with. /So you had a choice to get there, but to look at it is retrospect. Your choice has dissolved. Maybe it's the mixing of tenses that has you off. You did what you deemed best and at the time you could have chosen whatever, but in retrospect - you have no choice because your choice is already made. This is entirely the thought process that I believe to bewrong. You see wes, if you recursively retreated all these 'choices', you end up with the 'choice' to be born. /You've just missed slight context shifts. I tried to explain that above and in the last post. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, maybe you're too thick to get it. Which is it? You need to recognize the implication of contexts. /There is always a choice. Your inability to see them may be a limiting factor in your ability to align the results of your choices with your intent. Wes, even if I recognize as you claim that there are 'choices', 'best' is still undefinable accroding to context. But then this becomes semantics issue easily forgotten. For your agrumnet becomes that as humans, we do what we believe satisfies us best at a given moment. Provide context, and the argument becomes, humans simply do what we must do according to the gorverning conditions. But we have an important slight in the manner of choice. /There is always a choice, so there is always a degree. You always have at least two options eh? This or that? Die or live? You choose what choice you deem best. You may not even consciously think about. Obviously, I disagree with choice. You do not have the choice to live or die. Your only option is to live. If you kill yourself, this decision relies on stimilus external (assuming 'sanity--schizo not allowed') to your being. Your aim is to survive, to live-- this is ingrained in your brain. /Say I'm a heroin addict. I like heroin a lot. I'm getting sick though because I haven't had a fix in a long time. What are my options? Get sick or get high? Whatever I choose, it's the best choice for me given what I see as my options. I certainly don't want to get sick, so I get high. Best choice made, life moves on. You are not taking into cosideration, the context of implications. What you pick is not the "best" choice-- it is simply a choice you made to. /I'll give you a clue: Think economics and opportunity costs. Now apply that to every single little aspect of your mind. You might follow, but I doubt it. You are seemingly hell bent on proving that I'm wrong. LMAO. If I compare the opportunity costs of getting a fix-- not getting 'sick', the high, to that coming with not getting the fix-- not getting 'sick', future money not gained, etc, etc... you realize that the 'choice', if made to get that fix is made because the addiction overwhelms the mind. There is no compare. /What's funny is that you seem to think that I CAN be wrong about this. Maybe you'll find a contradiction. Regardless though you'll note this is opinion. I think this is how things can be logically viewed to determine the structure of someone's mind. It works well for me. You have to realize this about their them and you'll see things start to fall in line. Regardless, back to the fray. I think not only can you be wrong, but that you are wrong. This is not the way to look at the situation in my opinion for the implications of 'best' are still being missed by you. Assuming choice, they simply make the only choice they could make, given the circumstances. /Why isn't it? Obviously if you've chosen to satisfy the addiction it's to avoid costs of choosing not to. You may think to yourself "well I care about living a long full life and being healthy" and I'll say "well you might, but obviously that doesn't stop you from choosing to avoid quitting, don't you find that contradictory to your assertion that you case about a love full life and being healthy?" Dig how this works yet? You're going to call it tripe again aren't you. *sigh* I'll get you schooled up, don't sweat it. Hehe. Okay probably not. It'll probably be 20 years from now when you'll finally realize "oh wait that dude was RIGHT! DAMN!". It's okay. heheahehae. Punk! Choosing to staisfy the addiction does not weigh the opportunity costs of not choosing to. The reason why the context is not the addiction includes many many things. One simply, since you brought up economics, is the inability to analyze opportunity cost. /There is always choice. When I said "because there is no other choice" that is really a misnomer. I mean "no other acceptable choice". My bad. This also does not change anything. If there is no other acceptable 'choice', there is only one acceptable 'choice'. So there is no choice. /Think about this. If I choose to fly to venus because they have a ton of sweet pussy there, but I have no vehicle to make the journey (let alone survive the planet). Was that a choice I could make or just a fantasy? Thus it isn't a choice, so you're full of shit. It falls to the top of the list as the top wasn't really the top, it was just your poor understanding of you options, or it wouldn't have been included in the first place. LOL. It is also falls to the bottom, as there is no bottom; and also to the middle, and any where you want to put it. The issue is imply that a 'best' cannot be considered because there is nothing else to compare to. If it is a best, it also a worst. A 'best' therefore becomes meaningless. /All of your contexts are integrated into your choices. You can pretend that your pretty little heirarchy exists, but if you're a crackhead, you've made your fucking bed and you new fucking context is crack. Incorrect. Assuming choice, a choice is made only within a certain context. Choices are integrated into your contexts. This hierachy still exists-- even if your mind is fucked up by an addiction that is bilogical and more powerful than your mental defense. This is why even if there are other choices to be made, the context is perverted and thus a hierachy must come into place if one wants to discuss a best. Beacuse of your PM, the rest shall/can be ignored and attributed to a misunderstaning, eh old man?
Groovy. First of all, good post, I think we might be able to get somewhere from here. You bring up the reasons I come to my conclusions. I hope I can properly communicate my thoughts. /Give me a situation that allows 'choices' and I will show you a situation where you had to follow the path you did follow. But you said you wanted to avoid another conversation about choice! Hehe, I can see you've seen it unavoidable. Okay so let's go. /I believe this "set" of solutions you present is merely one solution with the rest being dummies. Why the others necessarily dummies? Say I read your post and I think it was the most enlightened thing I've ever read in my life. I could have had a gazillion different impressions of it, but I chose to praise it. Why were my other choices dummies? Can you see where I'm going with this? /Only one from the solution set is a solution; only one will be taken. You're right. There is a set to contemplate but I'll go with "instant destiny" all day long. I'm down. You could only make the one choice at the time you make it. You must consider though, perspective in time. If I speak of an event in the future I have choice, free will. If I speak of the choice in the past I have no choice, no free will. If I speak of them in the present they co-exist. My choice is shaped by the subset of self that is allocated toward the choice in the present. It slides to the past and free will dissolves. This is the fruition of my original thought. Ultimately, free will is your choice of how you see yourself in the present. Your choice is in the moment. The past and future don't actually exist. Hehe. Talk about impractical. Eh, it's still true. They are abstracts. /I can see why you may think it mere semanctics are you have restricted context to fit this argument. I however, believe the diffference to be fully important. You see, the "best" under a given context is a mere subset of a larger context and the 'best' within the restricted context must not be labelled 'best' because it implicitly disregards context. I understand that completely, but if you claim that your action wasn't best because you had a different context, isn't that the definition of denial? Denial is when you tell yourself something to justify something else right? To save you from having to face some inconsistency that is threatening to your mental stability? You can certainly question your decision in retrospect and find it not to be best by some criteria that you apply at the time, hell it may have even been the same criteria you used at the time but you still made whatever shit decision you deemed to be shit later. That means, you were pretending to yourself at the time that your other context didn't exist, such that you could indulge in the context at hand. As such, to realize that you must have done what you thought best in the moment is a key to minimizing denial, as it is a means by which in the present you can have the realization that you should change your choice. It's a bridge from future to past in a sense. Hehe.. okay that last part was dumb but before that I thought was pretty good. So you can retrospectively categorize it however you please, but in the moment, you make the "best" choice given your constraints, by definition (in my model).
They're not the same are they? Function is supplementary to Purpose isnt it... purpose drives us towards our function.
Well actually I see it as: You perform your function. If you are open to it, by performing your function you can find purpose. Function is a given. It is your operation. You're constantly doing it, you cannot help it. IMO, if you are a student of your function, your purpose reveals itself.
Wes, I see where you come from, but I am saying your "praise' was inevitable. Besides, if you say that it is the most "enlightened thing" you've 'read in" your "life", then 'choices' become limited. The final solution is merely the integration/end process of related paths. Precisely, the future is an abstract. The past however is the amalgamation of all realizable experiences. It can still be experienced in the present. People "see" a "choice" in the future because a future solution is still a variable as it depends on conditions that are uncontrollable by the individual. Choice however implies conditions that controllable by the individual. I disagree. The thought processes depend on past processes that are shaped by outside influences undetermined, and biological processes already determined. All uncontrollable variables exist outside the individual. But there is no choice, because the individual does not control the outside influences. (hmm-- this is tricky. Can the individual control the outside influences or not? I have to think more...As of now, I think not) No, not really. Denial would be telling yourself that every decision you made was the best under the context-- thereby absolving yourself from any responsibility. Actually I think it is the reverse-- assuming the individual has one of the true beauties of denial -- choice, in place. If you say whatever you do is the best, even if you have one 'choice', then whatever decision you made was clearly to the best of your ability and thus nothing really should be changed. This would lead to complacency and I think it self evident the psyche does not work that way. In the present or in the moment, even in your model, there is no categorization-- merely a decision. From your model, categorizations can only be made in the abstract-- after the event.
I am very uncomfortablw ith the way the initial thread is written- enough so that i find it hard to concentrate on what is said. The harsh practicality is anethema to me. I guess i dont agree with whatever it is the writer has to say, becaus ei cant even bring myself to read all the way through it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you disagree with everything don't understand or haven't read? :bugeye: As you wish. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
very rare occurrence actually wes. cant work out why i reacted so stringly. i will read most things from all extremes. Just really grated on me. Can you put the idea in s lines or less? I think i read about 12.
